On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > + if (slot != -1) { > + /* > + * Use release semantics to ensure that ghes_estatus_cached() > + * running on another CPU will see the updated cache fields if > + * it can see the new value of the pointer. > + */ > + victim = xchg_release(ghes_estatus_caches + slot, > + RCU_INITIALIZER(new_cache)); > + > + /* > + * At this point, victim may point to a cached item different > + * from the one based on which we selected the slot. Instead of > + * going to the loop again to pick another slot, let's just > + * drop the other item anyway: this may cause a false cache > + * miss later on, but that won't cause any problems. > + */ > + if (victim) { > + call_rcu(&rcu_dereference(victim)->rcu, > + ghes_estatus_cache_rcu_free); } I think you can use unrcu_pointer() here instead, there should not be a data dependency since the ->rcu member itself should be otherwise unused (and if it were, we wouldn't care about its previous content anyway). But only Alpha cares about that distinction anyway, so *shrug*. While I much like the xchg() variant; I still don't really fancy the verbage the sparse nonsense makes us do. victim = xchg_release(&ghes_estatus_caches[slot], new_cache); if (victim) call_rcu(&victim->rcu, ghes_estatus_cache_rcu_free); is much nicer code. Over all; I'd simply ignore sparse (I often do). > + } > rcu_read_unlock(); > }